Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't let Morathisu read this lol - he'll start foaming at the mouth but point taken... check check.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian
Actually Chicago is one of the worst in terms of a cohesive transition from downtown into the neighborhoods. There are large dead zones to the south, southwest, northwest and, to some extent, west of downtown as a legacy of its industrial heritage and urban renewal initiatives. Washington, Boston, SF, Philly, Baltimore and Seattle are much better models for cohesive urban flow.
Don't let Morathisu read this lol - he'll start foaming at the mouth but point taken... check check.
LOL, no but as someone who actually lives in Chicago (sorry Fitz, but you do not), I mostly (not fully) disagree. There are areas that definitely are like this, but especially the north side is very, very cohesive minus a few parts (which are closer to the river on the West, or the former Cabrini Green site that is now mainly a big field). There are parts of River North that are weird (random lots) but this rarely exists if you start East of about LaSalle Street and work your way north all the way up to Evanston. Very, very cohesive. I can only think of one open lot and it was a former apartment building that was burned down a handful of years ago in a fire and there's been some stalling on developing it in the last year or two. Some of the former open lots in a few areas are being built up recently again, but it's not a lot.
Just keep walking forward. The north side is technically denser than San Francisco for about the same physical area. The areas where it gets less cohesive are parts of the West and South sides, but not all of them. Many parts are still fairly cohesive in those areas too.
Last edited by marothisu; 06-05-2013 at 04:22 PM..
Well why don't you start posting in Chicago vs No city because you don't want comparisons of it in a VS thread lol.....
I don't want to go over this again if you can't understand that not every single message in a thread has to compare one versus another. I was making a general statement about Chicago, just how others have made general statements about other cities. Spare me the bull**** please. if you want to take what I post, if it's about one city, and compare to another, then be my guest, but I am free to bring up facts about one city to make them known. It's all over this thread and I'm not the only one who does it.
I have enough humility to not come on here and compare one thing to another when I've only visited one of the places a few times and act like I'm some sort of expert about it, which is what many, many people do on here. "I've been to LA twice and I think I know more than the people who actually live there" mentality is rampant on this forum. I'm not about to participate in that, but I can participate for things I do know about, and if you want to take that data and compare it, then be my guest.
But what does any of this have to do with how dense DT Toronto and Old Toronto is vs these no DT core parts of Chicago? Please tell me..
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu
LOL, no but as someone who actually lives in Chicago (sorry Fitz, but you do not), I mostly (not fully) disagree. There are areas that definitely are like this, but especially the north side is very, very cohesive minus a few parts (which are closer to the river on the West, or the former Cabrini Green site that is now mainly a big field). There are parts of River North that are weird (random lots) but this rarely exists if you start East of about LaSalle Street and work your way north all the way up to Evanston. Very, very cohesive. I can only think of one open lot and it was a former apartment building that was burned down a handful of years ago in a fire and there's been some stalling on developing it in the last year or two. Some of the former open lots in a few areas are being built up recently again, but it's not a lot.
Just keep walking forward. The north side is technically denser than San Francisco for about the same physical area. The areas where it gets less cohesive are parts of the West and South sides, but not all of them. Many parts are still fairly cohesive in those areas too.
But what does any of this have to do with how dense Toronto and Old Toronto is vs these no DT core parts of Chicago? Please tell me..
Good lord. Never mind. If you don't get it, then please don't respond to my messages on this. The amount of "OMG it says city vs. city and you HAVE to bring up other cities in every. single. message." between you and another user is absolutely mind blowing.
I don't need another message about this. If you don't get it, then don't respond. Other users understand it. I am merely presenting data and you can take it and do what you want with it. Perhaps you can walk through it and say "oh...yeah it is cohesive. it's more than I thought and it compares to _____ city in this way."
LOL, no but as someone who actually lives in Chicago (sorry Fitz, but you do not), I mostly (not fully) disagree. There are areas that definitely are like this, but especially the north side is very, very cohesive minus a few parts (which are closer to the river on the West, or the former Cabrini Green site that is now mainly a big field). There are parts of River North that are weird (random lots) but this rarely exists if you start East of about LaSalle Street and work your way north all the way up to Evanston. Very, very cohesive. I can only think of one open lot and it was a former apartment building that was burned down a handful of years ago in a fire and there's been some stalling on developing it in the last year or two. Some of the former open lots in a few areas are being built up recently again, but it's not a lot.
Just keep walking forward. The north side is technically denser than San Francisco for about the same physical area. The areas where it gets less cohesive are parts of the West and South sides, but not all of them. Many parts are still fairly cohesive in those areas too.
I think cohesiveness from downtown (Loop, Near North Side) to other neighborhoods is something Chicago lags behind other cities in, especially NYC, Philly, DC, Boston, SF. Much of this as brought up by others is due to the industrial past of Chicago and the role the Chicago river played. As you mentioned, heading north from river north (east of LaSalle is probably a good point of reference) is really the only direction that has cohesiveness, and this is obviously due to the development along the lake. However, beyond that, every other direction of Chicago has a gap between downtown and the neighborhoods: The South Side has the rail yards, industrial, and blight; The West has the Kennedy, the river, and some industrial, The North West has Cabrini and the river. As you also know, this is improving every year, as Chicago probably has more construction going on than any city not named NYC, DC (and Toronto).
As to the thread, I find Toronto to be fairly similar to San Francisco in terms of vibrancy, and as it relates to Chicago, I find the most vibrant parts of Toronto (and SF) to be slightly more vibrant than Chicago's most vibrant part, but neither Toronto (or San Fran) can match the massive scale that is Chicago.
I think cohesiveness from downtown (Loop, Near North Side) to other neighborhoods is something Chicago lags behind other cities in, especially NYC, Philly, DC, Boston, SF. Much of this as brought up by others is due to the industrial past of Chicago and the role the Chicago river played. As you mentioned, heading north from river north (east of LaSalle is probably a good point of reference) is really the only direction that has cohesiveness, and this is obviously due to the development along the lake. However, beyond that, every other direction of Chicago has a gap between downtown and the neighborhoods: The South Side has the rail yards, industrial, and blight; The West has the Kennedy, the river, and some industrial, The North West has Cabrini and the river. As you also know, this is improving every year, as Chicago probably has more construction going on than any city not named NYC, DC (and Toronto).
Yes, exactly. There are many other parts of cohesiveness in areas to the west/northwest as well, but it's not as rampant as what I showed there. It definitely exists, but there are definitely pockets of "well there's a random empty lot" strewn in there which a lot of the north side, at least for a long, long time does not have much of at all.
Quote:
As to the thread, I find Toronto to be fairly similar to San Francisco in terms of vibrancy, and as it relates to Chicago, I find the most vibrant parts of Toronto (and SF) to be slightly more vibrant than Chicago's most vibrant part, but neither Toronto (or San Fran) can match the massive scale that is Chicago.
Yes, all three cities are vibrant IMO and there are vibrant parts of all cities that people have not experienced. Even residents to the city. In Chicago, for example, I cannot believe how many people have not experienced how vibrant the Viagra Triangle is in the summer. The area has so much life and people are oblivious to it even who are residents. Even the people on the Chicago forum are oblivious to it. I have been in cities that are MASSIVELY vibrant, like Istanbul, and it definitely at its height compares to some of the areas of Istanbul but in a smaller way for sure (Istanbul as a whole is more vibrant than anything I've experienced in the US/Canada though and Istanbul is also bigger than any city in the US/Canada so the scale of this is way larger).
I don't find it as cohesive as Old Toronto.. but it is fairly cohesive by Midwest standards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu
Good lord. Never mind. If you don't get it, then please don't respond to my messages on this. The amount of "OMG it says city vs. city and you HAVE to bring up other cities in every. single. message." between you and another user is absolutely mind blowing.
I don't need another message about this. If you don't get it, then don't respond. Other users understand it. I am merely presenting data and you can take it and do what you want with it. Perhaps you can walk through it and say "oh...yeah it is cohesive. it's more than I thought and it compares to _____ city in this way."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
